Terrel Bernard Appreciation Thread

[GoBills808]

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

Were the Chiefs missing Chris Jones, Nick Bolton, George K, Trent McDuffie, and L’Jarious Sneed?  

Do you think the Jags put up 200 yards on us if we had DaQuan Jones, Matt Milano, Tre White, Leonard Floyd, Christian Benford, Greg Rouseau and Von Miller or do those guys not move the needle much?

i already said they were injured

 

my point was that they didn't play that well

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

i already said they were injured

 

my point was that they didn't play that well

Your original point was the defense was overrated coming into the game and using the Jags game as an example.

 

That’s the point I was arguing.  They were #2 in defensive scoring before this Jags game.

 

If we punt two less times, the Jags aren’t getting to 20.  Given the circumstance, the defense played well.  They kept the game within grabs and our offense blew it.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Royale with Cheese

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Your original point was the defense was overrated coming into the game and using the Jags game as an example.

 

That’s the point I was arguing.  They were #2 in defensive scoring before this Jags game.

 

If we punt two less times, the Jags aren’t getting to 20.  Given the circumstance, the defense played well.  They kept the game within grabs and our offense blew it.

yes and I stand by that

 

Defensive scoring is a good stat. IMO it is too heavily influenced by a 3pt outing vs Sam Howell. There are other important metrics I have given that would refute the idea that this is a top defense

 

I also dispute the defense played well. I certainly agree that the offense was poor as well

[PBF81]

6 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

high energy is a good way of putting it imo

 

they've been reliant on the sacks and turnovers, first in the league in both...imo sacks can be relied upon but we all know turnovers have a big luck component

 

this is a defense dependent on the big play more than anything else right now, it has not been 'good' imo

 

 

 

It's interesing that you mention that.  I meant to say it earlier, but yes, this defense is a big-play defense, but that's typically a double-edged sword, which people/fans don't often recognize.  It's also why it's worked much better against Wilson/Jets, Howell/Skins, and Garropalo/Raiders and less so against Tua & Lawrence, with articles about the Jags/Lawrence talking about how they took advantage of our pass-rush.  That's good coaching and Press Taylor's an OC that I have my eye on for becoming a HC.  We'll see how his season develops.  

 

As to sacks and TOs, I've been saying for years, 20+ years, that they really need to track Sack-Success rates.  By that I mean how many sacks end the drive.  

 

For example, suppose you log a sack on 1st-and-10, ... good for the team and a sack stat for the player.  But if on 2nd-and-18 or subsequent to that the opponent gets a 1st-down, the sack was more or less for naught.  It really didn't matter in the grand scheme.  I've seen nowhere that keeps this.  

 

I'll start tracking it for us.  Who knows, maybe 90% of ours end drives, I have no idea one way or the other, but the point is that sacks on their own merit, while they look good in the stats, for both player and team, unless it contributed to shutting down the offense they're all but irrelevant.  

 

Same for when they're logged on us.  Two way street there too.  

 

Anyway, I'll go thru them and log them later tonight and see what's up, perhaps it'll give us a little bit more insight.  

 

BTW, I used to say that teams that live by the big play also die by the big play.  

 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by PBF81

[Doc]

27 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

It's interesing that you mention that.  I meant to say it earlier, but yes, this defense is a big-play defense, but that's typically a double-edged sword, which people/fans don't often recognize.  It's also why it's worked much better against Wilson/Jets, Howell/Skins, and Garropalo/Raiders and less so against Tua & Lawrence, with articles about the Jags/Lawrence talking about how they took advantage of our pass-rush.  That's good coaching and Press Taylor's an OC that I have my eye on for becoming a HC.  We'll see how his season develops.  

 

As to sacks and TOs, I've been saying for years, 20+ years, that they really need to track Sack-Success rates.  By that I mean how many sacks end the drive.  

 

For example, suppose you log a sack on 1st-and-10, ... good for the team and a sack stat for the player.  But if on 2nd-and-18 or subsequent to that the opponent gets a 1st-down, the sack was more or less for naught.  It really didn't matter in the grand scheme.  I've seen nowhere that keeps this.  

 

I'll start tracking it for us.  Who knows, maybe 90% of ours end drives, I have no idea one way or the other, but the point is that sacks on their own merit, while they look good in the stats, for both player and team, unless it contributed to shutting down the offense they're all but irrelevant.  

 

Same for when they're logged on us.  Two way street there too.  

 

Anyway, I'll go thru them and log them later tonight and see what's up, perhaps it'll give us a little bit more insight.  

 

BTW, I used to say that teams that live by the big play also die by the big play. 

 

I'd say holding the Dols' offense to 20 points was a great defensive showing.

[FireChans]

6 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

yes and I stand by that

 

Defensive scoring is a good stat. IMO it is too heavily influenced by a 3pt outing vs Sam Howell. There are other important metrics I have given that would refute the idea that this is a top defense

 

I also dispute the defense played well. I certainly agree that the offense was poor as well

Look at points per drive.

 

Bills offense in 2023 averages 2.83 points per drive. Against the Jags they averaged 1.6! That’s almost HALF their average (and obviously that includes the game we are talking about. 

 

Jags offense averages 1.64 per drive. Against the Bills they averaged 2.08 per drive. Not a great showing but not as nearly as stark a difference as the O.

 

The Offense. Was. The. Problem.

 

 

 

[PBF81]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

I'd say holding the Dols' offense to 20 points was a great defensive showing.

 

 

And 393 Yards of offense, and 142 rushing?  

 

I think we were talking about the rushing D as well, which isn't good nor has been this season.  

 

We typically start strong and get up for a couple of early home games.  We'll see how things shake out as the season wears on.  

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2023 by PBF81

[GoBills808]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Look at points per drive.

 

Bills offense in 2023 averages 2.83 points per drive. Against the Jags they averaged 1.6! That’s almost HALF their average (and obviously that includes the game we are talking about. 

 

Jags offense averages 1.64 per drive. Against the Bills they averaged 2.08 per drive. Not a great showing but not as nearly as stark a difference as the O.

 

The Offense. Was. The. Problem.

 

 

 

big sigh

 

I like the idea of looking at points/drive. Unfortunately you have two unrelated variables, namely Bills offensive ppd vis a vis their season average and Bills defensive ppd vis a vis the Jaguars. You can see how that's an issue.

 

The right way to look at it would, clearly, be the Bills defensive ppd across their season average IN RELATION TO the Jaguars game, as you did for the offense. They averaged 1.31 ppd on average. Against the Jags as you correctly calculated their gave up 2.08. 1.31/2.08 is close enough to 1.6/2.83 as to render the distinction between which unit underperformed the other eminently up for debate.

 

You. Do. Not. Understand. How. To. Do. A Relatively. Simple. Statistical. Analysis

[FireChans]

6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

big sigh

 

I like the idea of looking at points/drive. Unfortunately you have two unrelated variables, namely Bills offensive ppd vis a vis their season average and Bills defensive ppd vis a vis the Jaguars. You can see how that's an issue.

 

The right way to look at it would, clearly, be the Bills defensive ppd across their season average IN RELATION TO the Jaguars game, as you did for the offense. They averaged 1.31 ppd on average. Against the Jags as you correctly calculated their gave up 2.08. 1.31/2.08 is close enough to 1.6/2.83 as to render the distinction between which unit underperformed the other eminently up for debate.

 

You. Do. Not. Understand. How. To. Do. A Relatively. Simple. Statistical. Analysis

Wait what. So in one post you say, “the Washington 3 points game is a statistical outlier that’s making them look more impressive,” then in another, “let’s look only at the Bills side of the equation.”
 

No no my friend. The Bills defense didn’t allow as stark of a difference of the Jags offensive output as the Jags defense did to the Bills. Period. 
 

It’s not as though the offense and the defense of the Bills are intricately linked variables. Points per drive is points per drive. It’s an efficiency metric. 
 

Even if you want to say you can’t compare these two variables, fine, whatever. I will say that the Jags defense holding the Bills offense to nearly HALF their normal offensive production on a points per drive basis is a CLEAR reason we lost the game when our two biggest cap hits are our two best weapons on offense. 

[Doc]

35 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

And 393 Yards of offense, and 142 rushing?  

 

I think we were talking about the rushing D as well, which isn't good nor has been this season.  

 

We typically start strong and get up for a couple of early home games.  We'll see how things shake out as the season wears on. 

 

How much of the bolded was in garbage time/with backups in (which was basically the last 18 minutes of the game)?  Their 3 scoring/TD drives accounted for 56.5% of their yards.

[GoBills808]

10 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Wait what. So in one post you say, “the Washington 3 points game is a statistical outlier that’s making them look more impressive,” then in another, “let’s look only at the Bills side of the equation.”
 

No no my friend. The Bills defense didn’t allow as stark of a difference of the Jags offensive output as the Jags defense did to the Bills. Period. 
 

It’s not as though the offense and the defense of the Bills are intricately linked variables. Points per drive is points per drive. It’s an efficiency metric. 
 

Even if you want to say you can’t compare these two variables, fine, whatever. I will say that the Jags defense holding the Bills offense to nearly HALF their normal offensive production on a points per drive basis is a CLEAR reason we lost the game when our two biggest cap hits are our two best weapons on offense. 

look I'm going to give you a pity thumbs up

 

Let's do better next time

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

look I'm going to give you a pity thumbs up

 

Let's do better next time

Yeah I knew I lost that one lmao

[PBF81]

7 hours ago, Doc said:

How much of the bolded was in garbage time/with backups in (which was basically the last 18 minutes of the game)?  Their 3 scoring/TD drives accounted for 56.5% of their yards.

 

Couldn't we say the same thing in reverse about our defensive play?  
 

I mean I'm in the process of going through sack by sack for every player in every game and circumstance, and the first game that I looked at stood out, our four sacks against Tua were all against him when the game was well in hand, all with us leading by 17, 21, 28, and 28, in three of the four cases in desperation situations.  Do we discount those too then?   

 

You ask a good question, but doesn't the answer to it apply across the board on both sides for all teams, despite perhaps not equally but plus or minus,   it's hardly anything that's unique to us.  

 

Here's the thing, if we're going to scrutinize that there, then how about our two biggest rushing fail games, 172 v. the Jets and 196 v. the Jags?  We didn't have our backups in for those games, other than for injury, and in the Jags game.  

 

It's a good question the answer to which isn't unique to us in the rankings.  

 

About our D generally though, we apply a lot of pressure on D.  That's McD's MO.  The problem with that is that once teams start identifying your methodology, as Jax just did, then they start adjusting and taking advantage of those things, which is why new coaches or coordinators have an advantage in their first season, which for example might explain why Daboll came out of the gates strong last season starting 6-1 and 7-2, but then correspondingly why he's gone 4-10 since.  

 

Another problem with it is that you rely on big plays defensively, but then you also risk big plays going the other way, which is what we've seen with no shortage this season.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

44 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

Another problem with it is that you rely on big plays defensively, but then you also risk big plays going the other way, which is what we've seen with no shortage this season.  

 

 

That is what all the Frazier haters were saying they wanted. Let's see if they are happy to live the reality if it continues. 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, PBF81 said:

Couldn't we say the same thing in reverse about our defensive play?  
 

I mean I'm in the process of going through sack by sack for every player in every game and circumstance, and the first game that I looked at stood out, our four sacks against Tua were all against him when the game was well in hand, all with us leading by 17, 21, 28, and 28, in three of the four cases in desperation situations.  Do we discount those too then?   

 

You ask a good question, but doesn't the answer to it apply across the board on both sides for all teams, despite perhaps not equally but plus or minus,   it's hardly anything that's unique to us.  

 

Here's the thing, if we're going to scrutinize that there, then how about our two biggest rushing fail games, 172 v. the Jets and 196 v. the Jags?  We didn't have our backups in for those games, other than for injury, and in the Jags game.  

 

It's a good question the answer to which isn't unique to us in the rankings.  

 

About our D generally though, we apply a lot of pressure on D.  That's McD's MO.  The problem with that is that once teams start identifying your methodology, as Jax just did, then they start adjusting and taking advantage of those things, which is why new coaches or coordinators have an advantage in their first season, which for example might explain why Daboll came out of the gates strong last season starting 6-1 and 7-2, but then correspondingly why he's gone 4-10 since.  

 

Another problem with it is that you rely on big plays defensively, but then you also risk big plays going the other way, which is what we've seen with no shortage this season.  

 

If the metric you're using to judge the defense is sacks, sure you can say that they got the sacks in garbage time.  But they still held them to 20 points when it counted which, again, is the most important statistic.

 

As for the rush defense problems, the Jets can be chalked-up to Bernard being green and not calling the defense properly, as McD said the alignment on Hall's huge run was off.  And in the Jags game, Jones went down on the 4th play of the game and run defense will be an issue going forward.

 

But in both losses, the offense performed poorly.  Scoring just 16 and 20 points won't win you too many games.

 

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

That is what all the Frazier haters were saying they wanted. Let's see if they are happy to live the reality if it continues. 

 

There have been a handful of big plays against them so far.  The problem in the 2 losses was all on the offense though.

[PBF81]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

If the metric you're using to judge the defense is sacks, sure you can say that they got the sacks in garbage time.  But they still held them to 20 points when it counted which, again, is the most important statistic.

 

As for the rush defense problems, the Jets can be chalked-up to Bernard being green and not calling the defense properly, as McD said the alignment on Hall's huge run was off.  And in the Jags game, Jones went down on the 4th play of the game and run defense will be an issue going forward.

 

But in both losses, the offense performed poorly.  Scoring just 16 and 20 points won't win you too many games.

 

All valid points. 

 

I just threw the sack metric in as a comp.  Looking at all the games, 9 of our 21 sacks were against Howell and the Skins.  12 otherwise in the other four games.  3 per.  FWIW 

 

We'll see how they do going forward.  I expect a blowout on Sunday.  The two most sacked QBs in the game today are Jones and Howell, 28 and 29 respectively.  3rd is Fields with 20.  LOL  

 

It's looking like Taylor will get the start, but he has a 9.3 career Sack%, so with the Giants OL it doesn't appear as if he'll be much better than Jones, who's also mobile.  

 

We'll see.  

 

We need a couple of games to retrack, let injuries heal, and let the next-men-up acquaint themselves with starting.  The Giants and @ NE should be just what the doctor ordered.   I suspect that Kyle Allen will get some 4th Q mop-up action in both.  

 

 

[PBF81]

On 10/11/2023 at 10:20 PM, Doc said:

 

 

BTW, a great example of law-of-averages stuff is the sacks we've been discussing.  

 

Presently, Howell's been sacked 29 times and Jones 28.  That could lead someone to conclude that played out all season at that rate, they'd finish with 98 and 95 sacks respectively.  

 

That's incredibly unlikley to occur however.  The QB with the most ever sacks in a season had 76.  Only one other had in the 70s, 72.  

 

The next 7 QBs in the 60s.  After that, in the 50s on downward.  

 

But think about it, let's suppose one of the two sets a new record, it likely wouldn't be by much.  Say 75.  That'd be just under 4 sacks/game sustained on average from here on out, about 2 fewer per game than they've allowed to date now.  

 

 

[FireChans]

8 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

All valid points. 

 

I just threw the sack metric in as a comp.  Looking at all the games, 9 of our 21 sacks were against Howell and the Skins.  12 otherwise in the other four games.  3 per.  FWIW 

 

We'll see how they do going forward.  I expect a blowout on Sunday.  The two most sacked QBs in the game today are Jones and Howell, 28 and 29 respectively.  3rd is Fields with 20.  LOL  

 

It's looking like Taylor will get the start, but he has a 9.3 career Sack%, so with the Giants OL it doesn't appear as if he'll be much better than Jones, who's also mobile.  

 

We'll see.  

 

We need a couple of games to retrack, let injuries heal, and let the next-men-up acquaint themselves with starting.  The Giants and @ NE should be just what the doctor ordered.   I suspect that Kyle Allen will get some 4th Q mop-up action in both.  

 

 

While you are right that the sack number is a bit inflated by the Washington game, 3 sacks per game projected out to the entire year would be 51, which would’ve been fifth in the NFL last year and second in 2021.

[Doc]

8 hours ago, PBF81 said:

BTW, a great example of law-of-averages stuff is the sacks we've been discussing.  

 

Presently, Howell's been sacked 29 times and Jones 28.  That could lead someone to conclude that played out all season at that rate, they'd finish with 98 and 95 sacks respectively.  

 

That's incredibly unlikley to occur however.  The QB with the most ever sacks in a season had 76.  Only one other had in the 70s, 72.  

 

The next 7 QBs in the 60s.  After that, in the 50s on downward.  

 

But think about it, let's suppose one of the two sets a new record, it likely wouldn't be by much.  Say 75.  That'd be just under 4 sacks/game sustained on average from here on out, about 2 fewer per game than they've allowed to date now.  

 

I doubt we'll see 90+ sacks either because it will lead to injury (Jones will miss at least this game and missed 1/3 of the last) or benching (Howell).  And it would be interesting to see if sack numbers decline over the course of a season as players start to wear down.

[GunnerBill]

8 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

BTW, a great example of law-of-averages stuff is the sacks we've been discussing.  

 

Presently, Howell's been sacked 29 times and Jones 28.  That could lead someone to conclude that played out all season at that rate, they'd finish with 98 and 95 sacks respectively.  

 

That's incredibly unlikley to occur however.  The QB with the most ever sacks in a season had 76.  Only one other had in the 70s, 72.  

 

The next 7 QBs in the 60s.  After that, in the 50s on downward.  

 

But think about it, let's suppose one of the two sets a new record, it likely wouldn't be by much.  Say 75.  That'd be just under 4 sacks/game sustained on average from here on out, about 2 fewer per game than they've allowed to date now.  

 

 

 

Behind that New England line..... if Mac plays an entire year..... 90 odd sacks is not impossible IMO.